Gyroscopic Investing

ns3 wrote:

Mountaineer wrote: I suggest if you have specific questions about the Scriptural meaning of head coverings and silence, you should discuss your questions with a Christian Pastor who is fluent in Koine Greek; he will be able to give you the nuances of the verses in question and how they fit in the overall message of Salvation.

I AM an ordained Christian pastor (believe it or not) and though I'm not fluent in Koine Greek I am fluent in Strong's concordance, both the  Greek and Hebrew footnotes. Also read a lot of other Greek stuff (interlinear New Testament?) you would probably recognize but I can't remember right now.

Having said that, I must admit I haven't kept up on the current teachings about head coverings in relation to Christian salvation. I suspect there has probably been a lot of ground breaking work on the subject since I lost interest. Glory Hallelujah! Perhaps you would like to share it with the rest of us so we may be equally blessed as you?

ns3,

Perhaps you would enjoy reading this sermon.  The sermon text is 1 Tim 2:1-15.

http://steadfastlutherans.org/?p=32961

I would be interested in your comments after you have read and processed what it says, that is if you choose to read it. 

On a second topic, you also might enjoy the book "Broken" by Jonathan Fisk.  It speaks to many issues related to those coming from an Evangelical background.  It helped me understand how true Christianity fills the void in ones life.  I don't know about you, but when I grew up, many "Christians" could be very judgmental as they were influenced by a "fire and brimstone" Law being preached rather than a balance of Law and Gospel.  I guess our sinful human nature craves feeling superior to others rather than approaching others with an attitude of service to them and sharing Christ's message of repentance, love and forgiveness.

Peace,  ... Mountaineer

New book that might be of interest to those who wish to pursue "figuring out religion":

Making the Case for Christianity provides timely and usable discussions about current objections to Christianity, including:
The Existence of God
How a God of Love Allows Suffering
The Resurrection of Jesus Christ

Endorsements

"Making the Case for Christianity is a carefully reasoned and clearly written defense of some of the central truth-claims of historic Christianity. ... This volume testifies well to the truth that historic Christianity is a faith that involves knowledge and is indeed compatible with reason."
—Kenneth Samples, Senior Research Scholar at Reasons to Believe, Author of 7 Truths That Changed the World. (Baker, 2012)

"A brilliant compilation of fresh articles addressing and answering the major, current objections the devout Christian is forced to address. ... This is an exceptional book that I enthusiastically endorse."
—Khaldoun A. Sweis, PhD, Chair and Assistant Professor of Philosophy, Olive-Harvey College in Chicago, Editor of Christian Apologetics: An Anthology of Primary Sources (Zondervan, 2012) and Debating Christian Theism (Oxford, 2013)

"Distinctively Lutheran, patently Christian, and genuinely winsome. ... Every page of this book communicates the Gospel and exalts Jesus. Indeed, such a Christocentric methodology is the best way to make the case for Christianity."
—David W. Jones, PhD, Associate Professor of Christian Ethics, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, Wake Forest, North Carolina


Making the Case for Christianity was edited by Korey D. Maas and Dr. Adam S. Francisco. Contributors include Dr. John Bombaro, Dr. Angus Menuge, Dr. Joshua Pagan, Craig A. Parton, and Rev. Mark A. Pierson.

Interview with author:  http://academic.cphblogs.com/new/korey- ... -264738737


... Mountaineer

What about the Old Testament death penalty for homosexuality?

Where are we at on that one?

Another one that is peculiar is that God chose Noah as the only one in the whole world who was worth saving (plus his extended family), and yet right after God saved him from the flood he was found laying around in his tent drunk and naked.  Was that really the best person in the whole world and the only one worth saving?  Also, I wonder about how he rounded up animals that were native to other continents and why, if all future humans came from his sons and their wives, there weren't some pretty serious human inbreeding problems after that.

Another question is whether Adam and Eve were Jewish.  Also, who did Cain marry when Adam and Eve got kicked out of the Garden of Eden?

Another one I wonder about is God wanting the male members of his chosen people to cut off the loose skin at the end of their penises.  It seems like if God had preferred the "circumcised look" he would have just made the penis that way to start with.  Deeper into that discussion, I would probably ask about the practice of the rabbi sucking the blood from the wound caused by the circumcision.  That one really challenges my notions about what God's plan for humanity might include.

Another one I wonder about is the second set of Ten Commandments in Exodus 34 that were supposed to be a copy of the first set that Moses broke (and apparently didn't remember until he wrote Deuteronomy later on or else he would have presumably pointed out to God that the second set of commandments did not match the first set).

Here is the second set of the Ten Commandments from Exodus 34:

1.  Thou shalt worship no other god.
2.  Thou shalt make thee no molten gods.
3.  The feast of unleavened bread shalt thou keep.
4.  Six days thou shalt work, but on the seventh day rest.
5.  Thou shalt observe the feast of weeks.
6.  Thrice in the year shall all your men children appear before the Lord God.
7.  Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leaven.
8.  Neither shall the sacrifice of the feast of the passover be left until the morning.
9.  The first of the firstfruits of thy land thou shalt bring unto the house of the Lord thy God.
10. Thou shalt not seeth a young goat in his mother's milk.

Eight of the revised set of Ten Commandments are different from the first set in Deuteronomy.  Also, Exodus 34 says that Moses spent 40 days in the woods with no food or water while collecting the second set of Ten Commandments.  No human can go 40 days without water and 40 days without food would probably kill most people.

Moving forward to the New Testament, it always bothered me that at the end of the Gospel of John, the writer talks about how when Jesus was crucified (or it might have been when he was resurrected), many dead religious leaders from the past spontaneously rose from their graves in the middle of an earthquake that coincided with the event and these previously long-dead people walked around for a while before presumably returning to their graves (or ascending into Heaven).

What bothers me is that the other three Gospels make no mention of this earthquake and dead people popping up out of their graves.  How could you possibly leave something like that out of a story about Jesus's life?  Also, you would think that Paul and the other letter writers in the New Testament would mention this amazing ending to Jesus's life on earth.  It seems like the Romans would have also recorded something as significant as an earthquake that coincided with the spontaneous popping out of the ground of a bunch of dead people.  I mean, don't you think that Josephus's journal entry for that day would have said something like:

"You're never going to believe what happened today!  When they killed that Jesus dude a big earthquake happened and then a bunch of dead bodies started popping out of the ground and they were just walking around like they hadn't been totally dead right before then.  Holy zombies!  I've never seen anything like it in my life!"

The wonderful thing about religion, or any other faith-based system, is that you can always explain away any objections by saying "God works in mysterious ways" or the like.

Of course this isn't very convincing to those who don't have the same faith, but to hell with them! 

Libertarian666 wrote: The wonderful thing about religion, or any other faith-based system, is that you can always explain away any objections by saying "God works in mysterious ways" or the like.

Of course this isn't very convincing to those who don't have the same faith, but to hell with them! 

We'll just let them live in the dangerous world where people get hurt and the Devil will be their God.

Isn't that sort of the current Islamic party line?  If you aren't a Muslim you aren't going to go to Heaven, and if you make any fuss about your own beliefs you might get hurt.  Of course, looking back a few centuries that was the Christian party line as well, and quite a few centuries before that it was the Jewish party line.

MangoMan wrote: So 35 pages in, and we are clearly no closer to 'figuring out' Christianity. Anyone want to give it a shot with Judaism, Islam, Hinduism or Buddhism?

It may not be as complex as you think.  Buddhism is supposedly an offshoot of Hinduism and Islam and Christianity have their roots in Judaism.  So, not four more to process, maybe only two more?  You can start, I'll catch up on page 100. 

... Mountaineer

MangoMan wrote: So 35 pages in, and we are clearly no closer to 'figuring out' Christianity. Anyone want to give it a shot with Judaism, Islam, Hinduism or Buddhism?

This thread has been great for me, and helped me really think through what I truly believe.  My Christian beliefs have been greatly strengthened.  Thanks to all that have participated so far.

***

MT,

I always find it funny that atheists/agnostics take the Bible more literally than some/most Christians.

I realize your comments are directed more towards Protestants/Evangelicals and sola scriptura.  However, this is one of the reasons why I lean towards Catholicism since there is a long biblical interpretative tradition where faith, reason, and tradition are used for a proper interpretation.  If there is disagreement within the Catholic Church then the Pope will settle the dispute and life goes on.  I realize the Catholic Church is far from perfect (and to be honest I don't go to church, yet), but I find their interpretations of Scripture reasonable and satisfies both faith and reason.

This short YouTube clip from Fr. Barron will help explain the Catholic perspective (7:34): http://youtu.be/htxOjJHB5-8

As for the saints rising up from the dead, I take it as poetic.  It is only two lines in Matthew, and has almost no importance for anyone's faith, as far as I know.  I just don't worry about it, unless the Catholic Church for some reason deemed it to be important.  St. Paul never mentions it in his letters/theology, as far as I know.

I find it best to take the Bible as a whole and also to have it interpreted by professionals.  There is no denying that there is a lot of weird stuff in the Bible, which is why I think it's important to have a living authority on the Bible and other Catholic matters, ie the Pope.

Gosso wrote:
This thread has been great for me, and helped me really think through what I truly believe.  My Christian beliefs have been greatly strengthened.  Thanks to all that have participated so far.

***

My sentiments exactly. This thread has even provided me "fodder" for some very meaningful discussions with my Pastor. I have learned a lot. Thanks to all.

... Mountaineer

MediumTex wrote: Another one I wonder about is the second set of Ten Commandments in Exodus 34 that were supposed to be a copy of the first set that Moses broke (and apparently didn't remember until he wrote Deuteronomy later on or else he would have presumably pointed out to God that the second set of commandments did not match the first set).

Here is the second set of the Ten Commandments from Exodus 34:

1.  Thou shalt worship no other god.
2.  Thou shalt make thee no molten gods.
3.  The feast of unleavened bread shalt thou keep.
4.  Six days thou shalt work, but on the seventh day rest.
5.  Thou shalt observe the feast of weeks.
6.  Thrice in the year shall all your men children appear before the Lord God.
7.  Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leaven.
8.  Neither shall the sacrifice of the feast of the passover be left until the morning.
9.  The first of the firstfruits of thy land thou shalt bring unto the house of the Lord thy God.
10. Thou shalt not seeth a young goat in his mother's milk.

I got a chance to read through Exodus 34 and at the very beginning it explains that the two new tablets had the exact same commandments as the first set and those spoken in Exodus 20:

Exodus 34:1 KJV wrote:And the Lord said unto Moses, Hew thee two tables of stone like unto the first: and I will write upon these tables the words that were in the first tables, which thou brakest.

The other commandments you mentioned aren't all that profound or important; they seem to be additional instructions, but nowhere near as important as the original Ten Commandments.  I admit that chapter is confusing, I can see how someone could read it as if there were new commandments.  Although I know of no one that reads it that way.

There is also Deuteronomy 10:1-4, where Moses explains again that the original ten commandments were recorded on the second set of stone tablets.

Attention all atheists, now hear this!

http://steadfastlutherans.org/?p=35126

What the Atheist Can Know About God—Part I
February 5th, 2014Post by Jim Pierce

The following article is taken from Mr. Jim Pierce’s presentation at the Wyoming District’s Tell the Good News About Jesus Convocation held on January 31, 2014 through February 1, 2014. This is part one of his speech, “What the Atheist Can Know About God.”?

Before we can understand what the atheist can know about God, or even what the atheist claims they can know about God, we must first talk about what it means to be an atheist. 

Click on the link above to read the whole article.

... Mountaineer

I'm not rejecting the Bible as untrue.  Rather, I am trying to figure out where one should come to rest on the continuum between a completely literal reading of the Bible and a completely allegorical reading of the Bible.

Almost any spot on this continuum that I have heard described as the correct position still seems to have a lot of problems associated with it.

If God is the one who made us, he is the one who gave us a sense of curiosity and reason.  I'm just curious about what all this is supposed to mean, especially considering that it was written by a group of men who claimed that God had talked to them.  Since I don't know if they were telling the truth about God talking to them, I am simply analyzing the complete works produced by this group of writers using my sense of reason for inconsistencies and contradictions that might help me to understood which, if any of them, might have not actually been communicating with God when he wrote his portion of the Bible.

Paul wrote about the dangers of taking an overly intellectual approach to God's plan for humanity, but I'm not really sure what that means, considering that Paul basically used tightly reasoned arguments in his letters that arise from an intellectual approach to understanding what God wants us to do.

If an intellectual approach is an impediment to understanding God, what's the deal with all of these biblical scholars?  Are they just wasting their time, or worse, actually leading people astray with their dusty-headed musings about seemingly countless interpretations of what the Bible is really supposed to be telling us?

Not that many people seems to have read it any more, but Thomas Paine's Age of Reason basically dismantles the Bible as a clumsy understanding of God by a group of mystical and uneducated people.  In the decades after Paine wrote this book, he was criticized roundly by religious leaders for his ideas, which is ironic because Paine was absolutely certain that God existed as the "architect of the universe", and he made it clear that he wrote Age of Reason as a way for an enlightened society to move away from the Bible and toward a more direct understanding of God based simply upon understanding the world and universe around us. 

Paine would probably have said that the scientist in the lab making discoveries about the nature of the universe is essentially providing us with a better understanding of the mind of God, since one of the best ways to understand the Creator is to understand what he has created.

I think that people can be 100% mortal and still have been created by God.  I see no tension there.  The problem is that everyone wants to be immortal and God-like themselves, and I think that much of religion has simply been tailored to appeal to that basic human desire.

Just some stuff to think about.

Mountaineer wrote: Attention all atheists, now hear this!

http://steadfastlutherans.org/?p=35126

What the Atheist Can Know About God—Part I
February 5th, 2014Post by Jim Pierce

The following article is taken from Mr. Jim Pierce’s presentation at the Wyoming District’s Tell the Good News About Jesus Convocation held on January 31, 2014 through February 1, 2014. This is part one of his speech, “What the Atheist Can Know About God.”?

Before we can understand what the atheist can know about God, or even what the atheist claims they can know about God, we must first talk about what it means to be an atheist. 

Click on the link above to read the whole article.

... Mountaineer

What do you think about the idea that religious people are atheists about all gods except their own?

MediumTex wrote:

Mountaineer wrote: Attention all atheists, now hear this!

http://steadfastlutherans.org/?p=35126

What the Atheist Can Know About God—Part I
February 5th, 2014Post by Jim Pierce

The following article is taken from Mr. Jim Pierce’s presentation at the Wyoming District’s Tell the Good News About Jesus Convocation held on January 31, 2014 through February 1, 2014. This is part one of his speech, “What the Atheist Can Know About God.”?

Before we can understand what the atheist can know about God, or even what the atheist claims they can know about God, we must first talk about what it means to be an atheist. 

Click on the link above to read the whole article.

... Mountaineer

What do you think about the idea that religious people are atheists about all gods except their own?

Dictionary: atheist |??TH??ist|
noun
a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods: he is a committed atheist.

Thesaurus: atheist
noun
why is it often assumed that a man of science is probably an atheist? nonbeliever, disbeliever, unbeliever, skeptic, doubter, doubting Thomas, agnostic; nihilist. ANTONYMS believer.

Strictly speaking, using the above definitions of atheist, I would say I am not an atheist about all gods other than the Triune Christian God.  For example, my definition of god is "that which you place your ultimate trust in to give your life meaning".  Since I really do believe that many people either overtly or covertly put their trust in money, fame, sex, family, personal ability, worthy works, etc. to give their life meaning, I accept, for them, there are other gods beside the Triune Christian God.  The thing that is unique about the Triune Christian God is the concept of grace.  To the best of my knowledge, all other gods require that YOU DO SOMETHING to be "saved" or declared righteous.  The triune Christian God has done it all for you and me and for the sake of Christ has declared us righteous; He is the only God I place my ultimate trust in.

... Mountaineer

MT,

The difference between a theologian and an atheistic/agnostic philosopher is that one has faith and the other doesn't.  The philosopher is trying to find truth on his own, while the theologian has found the truth but doesn't understand it.

I can respect Deism or Pantheism, but I personally find it lacking.

Maybe think of faith and reason as gold and stocks; I find it best to balance the two, which creates a far more stable/healthy environment for my mind to work in.  I recognize that some Christians go too far into faith and lose their reason, which is a risk.  But I find some people rely too heavily on reason and become zombies (I was there for a while myself), or are unaware that they have faith is something that won't be able to support them.

I will have a look at The Age of Reason.

Gosso wrote: MT,

The difference between a theologian and an atheistic/agnostic philosopher is that one has faith and the other doesn't.  The philosopher is trying to find truth on his own, while the theologian has found the truth but doesn't understand it.

I can respect Deism or Pantheism, but I personally find it lacking.

Maybe think of faith and reason as gold and stocks; I find it best to balance the two, which creates a far more stable/healthy environment for my mind to work in.  I recognize that some Christians go too far into faith and lose their reason, which is a risk.  But I find some people rely too heavily on reason and become zombies (I was there for a while myself), or are unaware that they have faith is something that won't be able to support them.

I think that you are hitting on something very important, and it relates to our need to create a stable environment inside our heads in order to simply live life without being endlessly tormented, distracted, frightened, etc.

Since our ability to imagine the future and our tendency to fear death can be so disturbing, it's not surprising to me at all that most religions seek to provide a happy and reassuring answer to the problem of the future expiration of our mortal forms.

A balanced spiritual life is sort of like a stable operating system in a computer.  I notice that for many people creating this balanced mental state involves simply going to church o an regular or semi-regular basis and having a very (sometimes very, very, very) shallow understanding of what their religion actually believes.  They just go along with the words in the religious texts and try not to think too deeply about the plausibility of the whole thing.  They're happy to leave it at the idea that they are going to live forever if they just jump through the right hoops at one of the the churches in their community.

I have never been able to do this, even though many people have encouraged me to just attend the services, sing the hymms, and try not to think about the whole thing too much.

What I really want is to simply understand the whole concept of religion in a more complete way, but that's hard to do when the message of most religious people you come across is basically that "My religion is the one true religion and all of the others are misguided."  I enjoy talking to people with this perspective, but I know that it's unlikely that they will be able to provide me with an enhanced holistic understanding of the whole topic of religion.

As I have touched on in prior posts, though, here are a few of the biggies that bother me:

1. If Jesus is the only way to Heaven, what happened to the people who died in the immediate aftermath of Jesus's crucifixion and for whom it would have been literally impossible for them to hear Jesus's message?  Are they all in Hell now?  What is the purpose of their eternal suffering?

2. When Paul wrote in Romans about people who have never heard The Word, but who are still without excuse because they should be able to look around them and see the truth of God's message to the world, it always struck me as a sort of Deistic perspective, since the truth you find from observing nature is far less specific than "Jesus is the Son of God, and you must accept him as your Savior in order to go to Heaven."

3. If the Jews reject Jesus as the Messiah, and Jesus is the only way to Heaven, is it really reasonable to conclude that the overwhelming majority of Jews over the last 2,000 years are either in Hell or going to Hell, especially considering that the Christian God is basically a less vengeful form of the Jewish God?  In particular (and related to the first point above), think about the pious Jews who lived during Jesus's time and who followed the Jewish Law.  Imagine one who died before Jesus's ministry and another equally pious and conscientious Jew who died after Jesus's ministry.  Are we to assume that one of them is in Heaven and the other one is in Hell?  That seems very odd to me, especially if we are talking about God's Chosen People.  Do Jews who simply continued following the Jewish Law after Jesus died really deserve to suffer for eternity in Hell?  Remember that in Jesus's time there were lots of guys running around out in the country claiming to be the Messiah.  Were all Jews expected to try to keep up with every one of these guys because one of them MIGHT have been the Messiah?  Does that mean that today all Christians should try to keep up with every looney tune religious fanatic who claims to be the Messiah because one of them MIGHT be the Messiah?

To the point above as well, why in the world did it take the writers of the Gospels several decades to get around to writing down the story of Jesus's life?  Consider this: If a guy came along in 1975 and performed miracles and rose from the grave after being executed by the state and then ascended into Heaven, would people REALLY wait until 2014 to start writing anything about it?  Considering that early Christianity was a thorn in the side of Roman rule, wouldn't we expect for the Roman records to contain some reference to a criminal who they crucified and who then came back to life?

4. If the zealous adherents to various religions find that it brings them closer to God (as they understand God) and provides them with a framework for living a meaningful life on Earth, why do we feel the need to say that all of them are going to Hell to suffer for eternity just because they don't belong to our religion?  Is God that picky about things?  That seems so cruel to me.

5. Why did God in the Old Testament feel so strongly about picking winners in military conflicts?  Is it really true that any army that opposed the Judaic armies of the time deserved to be annihilated, their towns sacked and their women raped?  Didn't God understand that many of the soldiers in any large military conflict are conscripts and really have no desire to kill anyone and would prefer to just go home?

6. Where does Neanderthal man fit into the religious picture?  Presumably God created the Neanderthal population as well, but for whatever reason allowed them to be exterminated by Cro-Magnons.  Were the Cro-Magnons Jewish and the Neanderthals Gentiles?  Did God not love the Neanderthals?  If humans were made in God's image, weren't Neanderthals as well, given their genetic similarity to us?

7. If someone listened to Jesus's message and began loving his neighbor as himself, repented of his sin, and looked for the Kingdom of God in his own heart, would that guy go to Hell just because he apparently didn't interpret Jesus's teachings correctly?--i.e., it may not have occurred to him to try to figure out whether the stories about Jesus rising from the dead were actually true, and in any case he didn't feel the need to figure it out because to him Jesus's teaching were complete in themselves and didn't really need any kind of supernatural resurrection event to validate them.

8. If we know that the Bible can be interpreted somewhere along the continuum between a literal reading and an allegorical reading, how are we supposed to know where the correct point is on this continuum?  How are we supposed to know what the correct interpretation is?  If we rely on our pastors and priests, how do we know that they have the correct understanding, especially considering that interpretations among pastors and priests differ significantly?  Are we supposed to just pray about it?  What if a buddy and I both pray about it and God tells me that I should read it literally and God tells my buddy to read it all as allegory, does that mean that one of us is wrong?  Does it mean that one of us is going to Hell?

9. If someone tells me that God doesn't want me to think about these things because there are no good answers, how do I know that God really doesn't want me to think about them?  What if God was leading me to think about them in order to actually give me all of the answers and the person telling me not to is actually a demon in human form?

10. To the religious people, if God appeared to you in the form of a burning bush (or some other acceptable form to validate his identity) and told you straight up that all organized religions today were screwing up his message, just like the Jews were screwing it up in Jesus's time, what would you do?  Who would you talk to about it, since presumably your priest or pastor would no longer be a useful source of guidance about God if God had just told you that the leaders of all organized religions had it wrong.

These are some of the things that I wonder about.

I will have a look at The Age of Reason.

Here is a link to the full text.

http://www.ushistory.org/paine/reason/singlehtml.htm

As I recall, part of it was written while Paine was in a cell in France waiting to have his head chopped off, so it probably has a different pace to it than the other part.  Happily, I think that Jefferson was able to bring him back to the U.S. with his head still attached.

Gosso wrote: MT,

The difference between a theologian and an atheistic/agnostic philosopher is that one has faith and the other doesn't.  The philosopher is trying to find truth on his own, while the theologian has found the truth but doesn't understand it.

A few questions:

How do we know that the theologian has found the truth?  The truth by whose standard?  How do we know that the theologian doesn't understand the truth that he has found?

How do we know that the philosopher has no faith?  As an example, Thomas Paine clearly had a strong sense of faith in God that gave his world harmony and meaning, but he was also a philosopher of great insight.

***

Great discussion guys.  I hope my posts are coming across as too strident.  I'm just trying to figure things out like the rest of you.

Gosso wrote: I'm not entirely sure where I fall along the literalistic spectrum either, but I tend to agree with St. Augustine that the creation story can be taken symbolically.  The creation story's intention is to inform us that God set the Universe into motion, but that the exact details are beyond our understanding.  We can then use science to help fill in the gaps as best we can.

When I read the Old Testament I focus on the story and what it has to teach me, rather than if it is historically or scientifically true.  I tend to think a lot of it could be historical, but it wouldn't hurt my faith if it turned out not to be.  Blaise Pascal even tells us that the Old Testament should be read primarily from a spiritual point of view, which I tend to agree with.

The Gospels I take as oral tradition passed down from Jesus and eyewitness accounts.

Edit: fixed awkward wording.

I remember listening to a long sermon about the hidden meanings in the first chapter of Genesis once and it was one of the most fascinating I've ever heard. Had absolutely nothing to do with science.

Arthur Pink's "Gleanings in Genesis" has similar mind-blowing observations and also his "Gleanings in Exodus". Never thought all those chapters describing the detailed construction of the tabernacle of Moses could be all that interesting until I read the latter book.

But speaking of Exodus, do you think it is possible that a group of people greater in size than the city of Tampa where I live could have wandered 40 years in the Sinai desert around 4,000 years ago and left absolutely no trace of their existence? If you were a complete Biblical literalist I think you would have to believe that, not to mention the worldwide flood story. (In regards to the latter I did learn recently in the movie 2012 that there actually is enough water to cover the whole earth up to the tops of the mountains).

"The Gospels I take as oral tradition passed down from Jesus and eyewitness accounts."

To me, that is the crux of Christianity - you either believe the eyewitness accounts or you don't.

Much is made of the fact that those accounts don't agree - especially in regards to the beginning and the end of the story. Try as I might I have never been able to reconcile them. It's curious however that the scribes who compiled them into the Bible didn't straighten out the discrepancies to make it a more credible narrative. Speaks to me of integrity in the process.

ns3 wrote: In regards to the latter I did learn recently in the movie 2012 that there actually is enough water to cover the whole earth up to the tops of the mountains.

Would you need to turn on like every bathtub faucet in the world with the tub drains plugged and then let them run for a month or so?

Seriously, though, I guess if you melted all of the ice in the polar regions it would raise sea levels significantly, but it's hard for me to imagine it raising sea levels thousands of feet, which is what it would take to cover the mountains.

Doesn't Al Gore wake up with night sweats over a couple of feet of sea level increases?  Imagine what would happen to him if you told him that sea levels were going to rise 10,000 feet.  He might just shatter into a million pieces like the cop did in Terminator 2 when he got shot after being frozen.

Mountaineer wrote: http://steadfastlutherans.org/?p=32961

I would be interested in your comments after you have read and processed what it says, that is if you choose to read it. 

Read it - but I don't see where it settles the question of whether women should keep quiet in the churches and whether they should keep their heads covered when they pray.

Personally, I don't take the story of Adam and Eve literally so it's hard for me to follow a line of reasoning that starts with that premise.

I have sometimes thought that the principal benefit of religion is that it makes people feel better about themselves and the world around them, which are actually really significant benefits.

I wonder if there is any relationship between the secular trends in the U.S. over the last few decades and the increase in the levels of antidepressant use.

A brilliant strategy for the drug companies would be to come out with an antidepressant/anti-anxiety medication that was actually just a sugar pill and call it "God."  The directions for use might be that you should only take it while inside a church.

I need an old priest and a young priest! 

MT,

My simple answer is I don't know.  And to be honest I don't think most people know.  We are working off the best information we have.  This doesn't disturb my faith since I normally don't think about Hell very much...I'm still trying to figure out this life first.

One thing to keep in mind is that Jesus was primarily the one that spoke of Hell.  This supposed pacifist and great moral teach, seemed to add to the end of all his sermons "or else you're going to Hell."  I find this strange and disturbing.  It seems he could have simply not mentioned Hell, and we might not even be worried about it.  But he felt it necessary to warn us.

Something that CS Lewis said about Hell that got my attention was this: "In all discussions of Hell we should keep steadily before our eyes the possible damnation, not of our enemies nor our friends (since both these disturb the reason) but of ourselves."  We really can't worry about the salvation of every single human being from all of history.  It's quite possible that people that have not heard or understood the Gospels will simply end up in Limbo which seems similar to Earth.  The depths of Hell will be for people that have knowingly defied God or committed great crimes.  We also don't know exactly what Hell will be like, Jesus frequently describes it as a place of destruction, so maybe that is where souls are destroyed, even though it might be a painful process.  Or Hell could just be a cold and lonely place where God's presence can't reach us.

MT, maybe you are smart enough to develop your own connection with God (I'm doing the same thing except within a Catholic framework), and you don't need all this "dog and pony show."

Another option is to take Heaven and Hell as simply metaphorical for our mental states while here on Earth.  Being outside of God leads to pain and suffering, while being with God leads to joy and peace.  I think a fair number of Christians take this POV, even though I think it waters down the New Testament too much.

Gosso wrote: One thing to keep in mind is that Jesus was primarily the one that spoke of Hell.  This supposed pacifist and great moral teach, seemed to add to the end of all his sermons "or else you're going to Hell." 

Bullshit!

Gosso wrote: Another option is to take Heaven and Hell as simply metaphorical for our mental states while here on Earth.  Being outside of God leads to pain and suffering, while being with God leads to joy and peace.  I think a fair number of Christians take this POV, even though I think it waters down the New Testament too much.

I tried this myself, but the more metaphorically I started to see things, the less interest the stories held. Even the metaphors I was trying to read into them contradicted each other.

I think a big problem with Judeo-Christian religions for me is that none of the stories have ever had even a shred of resonance for me. Reading the Bible is a terrible slog. I find it so boring. The stories make no literal sense and seem to espouse terribly discordant messages if read metaphorically.

ns3 wrote: "The Gospels I take as oral tradition passed down from Jesus and eyewitness accounts."

To me, that is the crux of Christianity - you either believe the eyewitness accounts or you don't.

Much is made of the fact that those accounts don't agree - especially in regards to the beginning and the end of the story. Try as I might I have never been able to reconcile them. It's curious however that the scribes who compiled them into the Bible didn't straighten out the discrepancies to make it a more credible narrative. Speaks to me of integrity in the process.

This reminds me of the story of Ludwig Wittgenstein supposedly threatening Karl Popper with a red-hot poker.  Even though the people in the room were the greatest philosophical minds in the world, none of them could agree on exactly what happened.  They all agreed that something bizarre and strange happened but none of the details from the eyewitness accounts matched up.  Read more about it here: http://www.theguardian.com/books/2001/m ... reducation

MediumTex wrote:

ns3 wrote: In regards to the latter I did learn recently in the movie 2012 that there actually is enough water to cover the whole earth up to the tops of the mountains.

Would you need to turn on like every bathtub faucet in the world with the tub drains plugged and then let them run for a month or so?

Seriously, though, I guess if you melted all of the ice in the polar regions it would raise sea levels significantly, but it's hard for me to imagine it raising sea levels thousands of feet, which is what it would take to cover the mountains.

Doesn't Al Gore wake up with night sweats over a couple of feet of sea level increases?  Imagine what would happen to him if you told him that sea levels were going to rise 10,000 feet.  He might just shatter into a million pieces like the cop did in Terminator 2 when he got shot after being frozen.

Hollywood said it and that settles it for me.

Just like the crossing of the Red Sea. All good Christians know it happened just the way Cecil B. De'mille showed it in the Ten Commandments, starring Charlton Heston as Moses'.

Unless you actually read the Bible and know better.